Monthly Archives: July 2011

Test-based accountability has been the most enduring education policy in the last fifty years (Elmore, 2004) and continues to dominate the political policy agenda (Feuer, 2008). It is attractive in that it promises an objective, accurate, easy and economical … Continue reading →

What are some reasons studies might not find a difference for merit pay or we might not trust their findings. It might be that teachers are already doing their best; therefore, giving them additional financial incentives to do better produced … Continue reading →

Pay-for-performance can work for people whose primary motivations are monetary. It may also work for those who do not need to work together in cooperation and collaboration to achieve a long-term goal whose sole aim is to benefit others, as … Continue reading →

Research shows student test scores are unstable and unreliable measures of teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2011). Also, when high stakes test are used to reward or punish, the process becomes vulnerable to misuses and abuses such as teaching to the tests, teaching … Continue reading →

Evaluating education and teachers fairly, clearly and honestly is a complex, difficult, expensive and time-consuming endeavor. Until now, we have mostly sought relatively inexpensive, easy and politically expedient solutions such as standardized testing. As a result, “we test students in … Continue reading →

Value-added modeling (VAM) is touted as a way to evaluate schools and teachers scientifically and fairly. Value-added models appear to address some concerns with comparing difference among students growth, however there are serious methodological problems with the reliability and validity … Continue reading →

Education is a tremendous force and has the potential of enabling individuals and societies to flourish. However, formal education and those that work in the field of education can only do so much. For instance, schools and teachers cannot reform … Continue reading →